September 2, 2026

September 2, 2026

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on September 2, 2026 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken  Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, Tom Mio and Nancy Dunnell. Absent were Tim  Nordlof and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh  Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Johnson/Dunnell. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 5, 2026 – Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-04CU by Brent and Rachel  Noble: Lot Six (6), Block One (1), Plat of Brooks Farm, Section One (1),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West  (Wabanica) – Parcel ID # 23.56.01.060. Applicants are requesting a Conditional  Use Permit, in accordance with Sections 902 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than ten (10) yards of material  within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to re-slope a portion of the bank  to provide easier access to the shoreline. 

Brent was in attendance and discussed their need for a land ramp to get down to the shoreline of  the Rainy River for snowmobile access and shoreline maintenance The group then moved to the  finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Brent & Rachel Noble Date: September 2, 2026 

Location/Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 1, Brooks Farm in Section One (1), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West 

Parcel Number: 23.56.01.060 

Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with  Sections 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the movement of  more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Rainy River to re-slope a  portion of the bank to provide easier access to the shoreline. Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Improve shoreline access. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?

YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? No change. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Grass slope. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Rainy River. 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X)

Why or why not?  

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Must be greater than 10’ from lot line. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to approve by Mio, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. 

 September 2, 2026 _________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt 

 Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

With no further business, Mio motioned to close the Planning Commission, second by Johnson.  All in favor.  

Motion by Johnson to open the Board of Adjustment, second by Mio. All in favor.  Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #26-05V by Todd and Denae Boushee: Lots Nine  (9) and Ten (10), Block One (1), Wabanica Bay Plat, Section Twelve (12),  

Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West  

(Wabanica) – Parcel ID #23.50.01.090 and 23.50.01.100. Applicants are  

requesting a variance from Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County  

Zoning Ordinance to allow the redevelopment of these lots with a new dwelling  and septic system at less than the required one hundred (100) foot setback from  Wabanica Bay. Wabanica Bay is a Tributary River segment. 

Todd and Denae were in attendance and discussed their plans to move a new home onto the  property and align with neighboring properties setbacks as well as space for a garage in the  future. The current home is approximately at a 75’ setback that they hope to maintain. The  existing trailer home will be removed. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Todd and Denae Boushee Date: September 2, 2026 Parcel #: 23.51.01.090 & 23.51.01.100 Variance Application #: 26-05V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural Residential.

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and shape. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and shape. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size and shape. 

Condition(s): 

1. Must be at least 66’ setback from OHM for structure from Wabanica Bay. 2. 50’ setback from OHM for the septic system from the ravine. 

3. To be completed by 12-31-2029. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) 

Motion to approve by Marhula, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. 

 September 2, 2026 ________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt Chair, Board of Adjustment 

With no further business before the Board of Adjustment, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM.

August 5, 2026

August 5, 2026

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on August 5, 2026 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken  Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, Tom Mio and Nancy Dunnell. Absent were Tim  Nordlof and Marshall Nelson. Others present were Land and Water Planning Staff Scott Head  and Eric Best.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Johnson/Dunnell. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 1, 2026 – Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-03CU by Bryce and Tracy  Evans: Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Sandy Shores in Section Twenty-one (21),  Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West – Parcel ID’s #16.55.01.150 and 16.55.01.160. Applicants are requesting a  Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with Sections 902 and 903 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the movement of more than ten  (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the Woods to  repair/reconstruct the existing rock rip rap. Additionally, the applicants are  requesting to construct a private water access ramp on Lot 16. Lake of the Woods  is a General Development Lake. 

Bryce and Tracy were in attendance and discussed their need for maintenance on their existing  Rip Rap as well as a desire to add a method to get down to the waters edge with family and small  boats to better enjoy their property. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Bryce and Tracy Evans Date: August 5, 2026 

Location/Legal Description: Lots 15 and 16, Block 1, Sandy Shores in Section Twenty-one  (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-three (163) North, Range Thirty-three (33) West 

Parcel Number: 16.55.01.150 and 16.55.01.160 

Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit, in accordance with  Sections 902 and 903 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the  movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of Lake of the  Woods to repair/reconstruct the existing rock rip rap. Additionally, the applicants are requesting  to construct a private water access ramp on Lot 16. Lake of the Woods is a General Development  Lake.

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline Protection 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) 

Why or why not?  

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent Erosion 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not? 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreline & Residential 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Shoreland protection and access 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X)

Why or why not?  

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) 

Why or why not?  

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) Why or why not?  

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X) 

Why or why not?  

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: (1) Follow DNR guidelines for lake access.  (2) Future maintenance is allowed. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X) Denied ( )

Motion to recommend approval with conditions to the Board of Commissioners by Mio,  seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

 August 5, 2026 

_____________________________________ 

Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Planning Commission 

This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.

July 1, 2026

July 1, 2026

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on July 1, 2026 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken  Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, Tom Mio, Tim Nordlof and Nancy Dunnell. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: June 3, 2026 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Mio. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Mio and Horntvet for Slick CUP 

Board of Adjustment – New Business 

– Consideration of Variance #26-01V by Steven and Cathleen Wehman:  Government Lot Nine (9), Section Thirteen (13), Township One Hundred Sixty one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,  Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel ID #23.13.31.000. Applicant is  requesting a variance from Section 503.6 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance and 5.11 of the Lake of the Woods County Subsurface Sewage  Treatment System Ordinance to allow the replacement of septic system  

components that will not meet the required one hundred (100) foot setback from  Wabanica Creek. The Wabanica Creek is a Tributary River Segment. 

Steve and Kathy were in attendance and discussed their need for a replacement septic system and  how the home was built that doesn’t allow for a replacement grinder ejector tank to be a  minimum of 100’ from Wabanica Creek. Approximate distance to a grinder ejector pump will be  65’. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Steven and Cathleen Wehman Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 23.13.31.000 Variance Application #: 26-01V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Upgrade of septic system. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential. 

3. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? House construction and location next to  Wabanica Creek. 

4. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Current septic failing and location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Septic failure and location. 

Condition(s): None. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Mio, seconded by Nelson. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-02V by Specialty Concrete, LLC (David  Nelson): The SE¼SW¼, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Fifty eight (158) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West – Parcel ID #43.20.34.000.  Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 503.4 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to allow the replacement of a structure that will not  meet the required one hundred fifty (150) foot setback from the South Branch of  the Rapid River. The South Branch of the Rapid River is a Forested River  Segment. 

David and Heather were in attendance and discussed their need to build a new cabin in an  existing clearing that doesn’t meet current required setbacks from the Rapid River. They want to 

utilize the original area that used to have a mobile home on it even closer to the river than their  proposed cabin. The group then moved to the finding of facts. 

Name of Applicant: Specialty Concrete, LLC (David Nelson) Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 43.20.34.000 Variance Application #: 26-02V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

2. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural Residential. New construction from  existing footprint. Elevation consideration.  

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential. 

5. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Limited area and elevation. 

6. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location and limited area. 

Condition(s): None.

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED (X) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS ( ) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Marhula, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-03V Dennis Johnson: The NW¼SE¼; S½SE¼,  Section Ten (10), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty four (34) West – Parcel ID #21.10.32.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 801.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and Sections  5.6 and 5.8 of the Lake of the Woods Subsurface Sewage Treatment System  Ordinance, to allow the applicant to install a holding tank for a seasonal cabin  with a pressurized water system. This is a non-shoreland property and is zoned as  a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Dennis Johnson was in attendance and explained his plans for the existing cabin to add water to  the structure via a sand point well. There are existing holding tanks already installed. Time spent  on the property is typically less than one week a year. The group moved on to the findings of  fact. 

Name of Applicant: Dennis Johnson Date: July 1, 2026 Parcel #: 21.10.32.000 Variance Application #: 26-03V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

3. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Seasonal/Recreational. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

7. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location and lack of power. 

8. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Location. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change. 

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No power and location. 

Condition(s): 

1. Variance ceases upon sale or transfer of property. 

2. Sewage pumping contract to be applied for with a certified sewage pumping contractor. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Marhula, seconded by Nordlof. All in favor. 

– Consideration of Variance #26-04V by George and Judy Risser etal.: The  SW¼NW¼; less deeded, and a 185’x 300’ tract of land lying in the SW¼NW¼,  all within Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-eight (168)  North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID #’s 02.29.23.020 and 

02.29.22.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 501.1 of the Lake  of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconfiguration of property  lines that will result in a lot that will be less than the required five (5) acre  minimum lot size. This portion of the property is considered non-shoreland and is  zoned as a Rural Residential District (R2). 

Jack Goulet was representing George, Judy, Wendy and Roxanne Risser and discussed their  plans for breaking off the golf course property to be sold. The clubhouse and post office would  remain with the golf course and the home would be a standalone parcel. The group then moved  on to the findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: George and Judy Risser etal Date: July 1, 2026 

Parcel #: 02.29.23.020 and  02.29.22.000 

Variance Application  #:  

26-04V 

A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will  result in a practical difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon  consideration of the following criteria: 

4. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods  County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change, except lot lines. 

2. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted  by the official control?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential, no change. 

9. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Previous lot line description. Non-shoreland  lot size have increased. 

10. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Clean up private property lot lines. 

5. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? No change.

6. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Clean up property lot lines. 

Condition(s): 

1. Property must be surveyed as a condition of the approved variance. 

IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE  VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET. 

Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the  Board of Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County  Zoning Ordinance. 

APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( ) Motion to approve by Mio, seconded by Nelson. All in favor. 

With no further business, Mio motioned to close the Board of Adjustment, second by Nelson. All  in favor. Motion by Marhula to open the Planning Commission, second by Johnson. All in favor. 

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-02CU by Geoffrey and Allison  Slick: A .78-acre tract in Government Lot 1, Section Twelve (12), Township One  Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID #  23.12.14.040. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the  movement of more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of  the Rainy River to re-slope the bank to minimize sloughing and future erosion.  The Rainy River is an Agricultural River Segment. 

Geoffrey Slick was present and discussed plans to stabilize sloughing and erosion of the  shoreline. Josh mentioned correspondence from the interim area Hydrologist noting to stay  above the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) of 1062.1’. The group then moved on to the  findings of fact. 

Name of Applicant: Geoffrey and Allison Slick Date: July 1, 2026

Location/Legal Description: A .78-acre tract in Government Lot 1, Section Twelve (12),  Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West Parcel Number: 23.12.14.040 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the movement of  more than ten (10) yards of material within the shore impact zone of the Rainy River to re-slope  the bank to minimize sloughing and future erosion. The Rainy River is an Agricultural River  Segment. 

1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? 

YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Better access to public waters. Within growth corridor. 

2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Provent erosion. 

4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Prevent erosion and correct the problem. 

5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type  and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Reshaped and reseeded. 

7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )

Why or why not? No change. 

9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing location. Rainy River. 

10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not?  

13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? 

 YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?  

16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? 

17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

Why or why not? 

The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 

1. Stay above 1062.1’ ordinary high-water mark. 

The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

Motion to recommend approval with conditions to the Board of Commissioners by Nelson,  seconded by Johnson. All in favor. Abstaining was Horntvedt and Mio. 

July 1, 2026 ___________________________________   Date Ken Horntvedt   Chair, Planning Commission  This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Nelson. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.

June 3, 2026

June 3, 2026

Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on June 3, 2026 

Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Ken  Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, and Nancy Dunnell. Others present  were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Johnson/Nelson. All in favor.  

Approval of Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2026 – Motion to approve – Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

Planning Commission – New Business 

– Consideration of Interim Use Permit #26-02IU by Cort & Joyce Claypool:  The S½SE¼SE¼, Section Eighteen (18), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162)  North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID # 17.18.44.010. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a  Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District. 

Name of Applicant: Curt & Joyce Claypool Application Number: 26-02IU Date: June 3, 2026 

Location/Legal Description: S½SE¼SE¼, Section 18, T. 162N, R. 34W 

ParcelNumber:17.18.44.010 

Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a  Rural Residential Zoning District (R2). 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

Why or why not? Promote local tourism. 

  1. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 
  • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives 
  • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly 
  • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms
  • Fire extinguisher(s)
  • Emergency contact list of numbers
  • Egress windows 
  • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application.

    1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Rural residential. 

    1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? County Road 8. 

    1. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not?_______________ 

    1. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    1. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not?______________ 

    1. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent  properties to the extent possible?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not?_____________ 

    1. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s  location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application (10). 

    1. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    1. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

     Why or why not? Per application.

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale  

    X 

    or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

    X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

    X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. X No on street parking is allowed. 

    X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Additional Conditions are as follows: Install rope ladders from the 4 upstairs bedrooms. 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

    June 3, 2026 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Nelson made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:17 PM.

    May 6, 2026

    May 6, 2026

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 6, 2026 DRAFT 

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson, Dave Marhula, and Nancy  Dunnell. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Nelson/Marhula. All in favor.  

    Approval of Meeting Minutes: February 4, 2026 – Motion to approve – Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  

    Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

    Planning Commission – New Business 

    – Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #26-01CU by J&L Hennum, Inc.:  That part of Government Lot Five (5), Section Twenty-four (24), Township One  Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, also known as that  part of the vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview consisting of Lots 1-6 &  13-17 – Parcel ID # 19.51.00.010. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use  Permit as required by Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning  Ordinance to create a Residential Planned Unit Development in a Commercial Recreational (CR) Zoning District. 

    Three letters of correspondence were read into the minutes. 

    Name of Applicant: J&L Hennum, Inc. Date: May 6, 2026 Application #: 26- 01CU 

    Location/Legal Description: That part of Government Lot Five (5), Section Twenty-four (24),  Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, also known as that  part of the vacated Plat of Jesme’s Addition to Riverview consisting of Lots 1-6 & 13-17 – Parcel  # 19.51.00.010. 

    Project Proposal: Residential Planned Unit Development for staff housing purposes in a  Commercial-Recreation Zoning District. 

    1.  Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )  Why or why not? Resort/Residential area. Growth corridor. 
    2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not?______________________________________________________ Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

    1. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 
    2. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway  of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 
    3. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

    1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? _Access stated as per application 
    2. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Other housing adjacent 
    3. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 

    1. Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Attached to Wheelers Sanitation District 
    2.  Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 
    3. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Drill well and Wheelers Sanitation 

    1. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and  numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________

    1. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 
    2. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application 
    3. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________ 
    4. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? As per application 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

    1. Consult with county engineer about design of access road.  
    2. For long term employee rental only.  
    3. Any variation from application is not permitted.  
    4. To be completed by 12/31/2031. 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( )  May 6, 2026 _______________________  Date Ken Horntvedt 

     Chair, Planning Commission This is in accordance with Section 1105 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:23 PM.

    February 4, 2026

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on

    February 4, 2026 

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, and Nancy Dunnell. Others present were  Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Marhula. All in favor.  

    Approval of Meeting Minutes: January 7, 2026 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Dunnell. All in favor.  

    Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

    Planning Commission – New Business 

    – Consideration of Interim Use Permit #26-01IU by Woodsmen Properties, LLC: Lot  5, Block 1, East Pine Creek, Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One hundred Sixty eight (168) North, Range Thirty-four (34) West – Parcel ID# 02.51.01.050. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to operate a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential  Development (R1) Zoning District. 

    Name of Applicant: Woodsmen Properties, LLC Number: 26-01IU Date: February 4, 2026 Location/Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 1, East Pine Creek Parcel Number: 02.51.01.050 

    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU,  to allow an additional structure to operate as a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural  Residential Development (R2) Zoning District. 

    Jeff Emery phoned in on a conference call to represent Woodsmen Properties LLC, to discuss the  request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the  application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact. 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Residential and recreational area. 

    2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 

    • Safe drinking water or other approved  alternatives 

    • Compliant septic system and sized  accordingly 

    • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Fire extinguisher(s) 

    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

     Why or why not? Per application. 

    3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? No change. Yes, residential. 

    4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? 17237 East Pine Dr. 

    5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed?  

    YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? No change. 

    6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Onsite. 

    7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? _________________ 

    8. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent  properties to the extent possible?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? __________________ 

    9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s  location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? 8 per application. 

    10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request): 

    The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale  X or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

    X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

    X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. X No on street parking is allowed. 

    X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Additional Conditions are as follows: Riser on septic tank must be in place by July 31, 2026. 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

    February 4, 2026 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Dunnell made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM.

    October 1, 2025

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M.  on October 1, 2025

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Nancy Dunnell and Dave Marhula. Others present were Land  and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Nordlof. All in favor.  

    Approval of Meeting Minutes: September 3, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Dunnell. All  in favor.  

    Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

    Planning Commission – New Business 

    • Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-08IU by Willliam Jackson and  Stephanie Stavig: Lot 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 2, River Oaks Plat, Section  One (1), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32)  West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID#23.52.03.050 and 23.52.02.080. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a  Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

    April Stavig represented the landowners to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board as well as calling Will to include on a conference call. The board discussed the information  in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

    Name of Applicant: William Jackson & Stephanie Stavig Application Number: 25-08IU Date: October 1, 2025 

    Location/Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 3, and Lot 8, Block 2, River Oaks Plat, Section 1, T.  161N, R. 32 W  

    Parcel Number: 23.52.03.050 and 23.52.02.080 

    Project Proposal: Applicants are requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of  the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a  Residential Development Zoning District (R1). 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential and recreation area.

    2. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 

    • Safe drinking water or other approved  alternatives 

    • Compliant septic system and sized  accordingly 

    • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Fire extinguisher(s) 

    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 

    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? As per application. 

    3. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential area. 

    4. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?YES (X) NO ( )N/A ( )   Why or why not? Oak Loop Road. 

    5. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

    6. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Onsite parking. 

    7. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________ 

    8. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties  to the extent possible?  

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ___________________________________________________________ 

    9. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s  location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application. 

    10. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application.

    11. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? As per application. 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or  

    transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. X 

    X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

    X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

    X No on street parking is allowed. 

    X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

    Additional Conditions are as follows: __________________________________________________ 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( )  October 1, 2025

    _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    Motion to approve as presented by Mio, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.

    January 7, 2026

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on January 7, 2026 

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom  Mio, Marshall Nelson, Wes Johnson, Ken Horntvedt, Dave Marhula, and Nancy Dunnell. Others present  were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Marhula. All in favor. 

    Election of Chair: Nomination of Ken Horntvedt by Marshall Nelson, seconded by Mio. All in favor. Election of Vice Chair: Nomination of Marshall Nelson by Tom Mio, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 1, 2025 – Motion to approve – Nordlof/Dunnell. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

    Planning Commission – New Business 

    – Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-06CU by Blue Line Consulting, LLC: The  NW1/4NW1/4, Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty four (34) West (Chilgren) – Parcel ID#17.09.22.000. Applicant is requesting an amendment to  Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU, to allow an additional structure to operate as a Short-Term  Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development (R2) Zoning District. 

    David Hahn represented the Blue Line Consulting to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of  fact.  

    Name of Applicant: Blue Line Consulting Application Number: 25-06IU 

    Date: January 7, 2025 

    Location/Legal Description: NW¼NW¼ Section 9, Township162N, Range 34W  

    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #22-14CU, to allow  an additional structure to operate as a Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Rural Residential Development  (R2) Zoning District. 

    1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Short-term Vacation Rental. 

    2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? No Change. 

    3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not?

    4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? 

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not?  

    6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? 

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?  

    YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? County Road 

    8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

    YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Rural Residential 

    9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? 

    YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? 

    YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate. 

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a  permit been sought? 

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X )

    Why or why not? 

    15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? 

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not? 

    16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent  possible?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( X ) 

    Why or why not?  

    17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?  

    YES ( X ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Plenty of on-site parking. 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows: Previous Conditions apply as per 22-14CU – Conditional use permit terminates upon sale or transfer of the property 

    – Quiet time from 10pm-5am 

    – Must post local contact information in the dwelling 

    – Must meet Minnesota Department of Health regulations  

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( X ) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions by Marhula, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

    – Consideration of Interim Use Permit #25-09IU by SQ Properties, LLC: Lot 4, Block 2 Rainy River Retreat, Section Twenty-four (24), Township One hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range  Thirty-two (32) West – Parcel ID# 19.62.02.040. Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit  as required by Section 401.B of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a  Short-Term Vacation Rental in a Residential Development (R1) Zoning District. 

    Name of Applicant: SQ Properties, LLC Application Number: 25-09IU Date: January 7, 2026 Location/Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 2, Rainy River Retreat Parcel Number: 19.62.02.040 

    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Residential  Development (R1) Zoning District. 

    Sarah McCarthy attended via conference call to represent SQ Properties LLC and to discuss the request  and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board  then moved on to the findings of fact.

    1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Growth corridor. 

    2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 

    • Safe drinking water or other approved  alternatives 

    • Compliant septic system and sized  accordingly 

    • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms • Fire extinguisher(s) 

    • Emergency contact list of numbers • Egress windows 

    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Per application. 

    3) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Resort area. 

    4) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Pickeral Trail NW. 

    5) Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? No change. 

    6) Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? On site. 

    7) Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? Residential area. 

    8) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties  to the extent possible?  

    YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) 

    Why or why not? 

    9) What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s location? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? 8 people as per application. 

    10) Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? As per application.

    11) Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) 

    Why or why not? As per application. 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):  

    X The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale  or transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

    N/A The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

    N/A A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. X No on street parking is allowed. 

    X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 

    Additional Conditions are as follows: Door in bedroom 2 must not be blocked unless a big enough egress  window is installed. 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods  County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) Motion to approve with conditions by Nelson, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. 

     January 7, 2026 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt  Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn, seconded by  Marhula. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:32 PM.

    September 3, 2025

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on September 3, 2025 

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio, Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson, Marshall Nelson, Nancy Dunnell and Dave  Marhula. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.  

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. Approval of the Agenda: Mio/Johnson. All in favor.  

    Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 6, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Nordlof. All in favor.  

    Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None.  

    Planning Commission – New Business 

    – Consideration of Interim Use Permit Application #25-07IU by Tyler and Hannah  Peterson: Government Lot Six (6), Section Six (6), Township One-hundred Sixty (160)  North, Range Thirty-three (33) West (Potamo) – Parcel ID# 28.06.32.000. Applicant is  requesting an Interim Use Permit as required by Section 1106 of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural Residential  Zoning District (R2). 

    Tyler and Hannah Peterson attended conference call to discuss the request and answer questions  from the board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on  to the findings of fact.  

    Name of Applicant: Tyler and Hannah Peterson Application Number: 25-07IU Date: September 3,  2025 

    Location/Legal Description: Government Lot 6, Section 6, T. 160N, R. 33 W Parcel Number:  28.06.32.000 

    Project Proposal: Applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit, as required by Sections 1106 of the  Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a short-term vacation rental in a Rural  Residential Zoning District (R2). 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use  Plan? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential use. 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining public health, safety, and welfare? This  includes the following items: 

    • Safe drinking water or other approved alternatives 

    • Compliant septic system and sized accordingly 

    • Smoke/carbon monoxide alarms

    • Fire extinguisher(s) 

    • Emergency contact list of numbers

    • Egress windows 

    • Evacuation plan and fire safety protocols 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. 

    1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural Residential. 

    1. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access to the property?   YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 2. 
    2. Will the project proposal increase traffic to and from the site? If so, has the applicant adequately  demonstrated how the increased traffic is to be addressed?  

     YES ( ) NO (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change. 

    1. Has the applicant adequately addressed how parking is to be addressed on the property? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On site. 
    2. Is fencing and/or screening needed to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______ 
    3. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the  number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties  to the extent possible? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______ 

    1. What is the maximum number of occupants and is this reasonable for the project proposal’s  location? 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? 4 per application. 

    1. Are the proposed periods of use and operation reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s  location? 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. 

    1. Are the quiet hours reasonable in relation to the project proposal’s location?  YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Per application. 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows (Check all that are applicable to this request):   

    The interim use permit terminates five (5) years from the date of approval or upon sale or  

    X transfer of the property, whichever occurs first. 

    X The septic system is sized for the maximum occupancy identified in the application. 

    X The maximum occupancy is limited to the identified number in the application. 

    X The established quiet hours are as identified in the application. 

    X A valid Certificate of Compliance for the septic system is required. 

    X No on street parking is allowed. 

    X If applicable, applicant must meet the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Additional Conditions are as follows:___________________________________________________

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the  Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

    September 3, 2025 _____________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    Motion to approve with conditions by Nelson, seconded by Dunnell. All in favor. Planning Commission – Old Business 

    – Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-05CU by Buell Consulting, Inc. on behalf  of Lake Area Construction, Inc.: The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the  Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼SW¼), Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID#19.20.31.000. Applicant  is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the  Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural  Residential District (R2). 

    Blair Ransom attended via conference call on behalf of Buell Consulting to discuss the request  and answer questions from the board. Rex Block was also in attendance on behalf of Lake Area  Construction. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on  to the findings of fact. 

    Name of Applicant: Lake Area Construction, Inc./The Towers, LLC Date: September 3, 2025  Blair Ranson, Buell Consulting, Inc. as Agent 

    Location/Legal Description: The SE¼SW¼SW¼, Section 20. T. 162N, R. 32W Parcel Number:  19.20.31.000 

    Project Proposal: To operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential District  (R2). 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land  Use Plan? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Communications. 

    1. Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Communications. 
    2. Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution,  including sedimentation and nutrient loading? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________

    1. Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage  features, and vegetative cover?  

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________ 

    1. Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or  floodway of rivers or tributaries? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________ 

    1. Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________ 
    2. Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?  

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? County Road 8. 

    1. Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? 

     YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Rural residential. 

    1. Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________ 
    2.  Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal  system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________ 

    1. Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with  Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance?  

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _____________ 

    1. Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems?  YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________ 
    2. Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?  

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________ 

    1. If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or  other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)  requirements, has a permit been sought? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ______________ 

    1. Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from  adjacent properties? 

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________

    1. If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for  the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from  adjacent properties to the extent possible?  

     YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? ____________ 

    1. If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant  adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed?   YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A (X) Why or why not? _______________ 

    The specific conditions of approval are as follows:  

    1. Approval pending wetland conditions and FCC and FAA regulations. 

    The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of  the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be: 

    Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions (X) Denied ( ) 

    September 3, 2025 _____________________________________  Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Planning Commission 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance 

    Motion to approve with conditions by Marhula, seconded by Mio. All in favor. 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn,  seconded by Nelson. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:24 PM.

    August 6, 2025

    Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 

    7:00 P.M. on August 6, 2025 

    Ken Horntvedt opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Tim Nordlof, Tom Mio,  Ken Horntvedt, Wes Johnson and Dave Marhula. Others present were Land and Water Planning Director Josh  Stromlund. Absent was Marshall Nelson and Nancy Dunnell. 

    Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place. 

    Approval of the Agenda: Marhula / Johnson. All in favor. 

    Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 2, 2025 – Motion to approve – Marhula/Nordlof. All in favor.  Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None. 

    Board of Adjustment – New Business 

    – Consideration of Variance Application #25-05V by Brian and Bonnie Johnson: Lot 12,  Auditor’s Plat Number 3, Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixty (160) North, Range  Thirty (30) West (Gudrid) – Parcel ID# 31.52.00.120. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.5 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the following: 

    1. An addition to the current dwelling which will not meet the required 100-foot setback  from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River. 
    2. Construction of a 32’x40’ garage which will not meet the required 50-foot setback from  the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Highway 11 and will not meet the required 100-foot setback  from the OHWL of the Rainy River. 
    3. Construction of an 18’x32’ garage which will not meet the required 50-foot setback from  the Right-of-Way (ROW) of Highway 11 and will not meet the required 100-foot setback  from the OHWL of the Rainy River. 
    4. Construction of a septic system that certain components may not meet the required 100- foot setback from the OHWL of the Rainy River. 

    Brian Johnson was in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board  discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

    Name of Applicant: Brian & Bonnie Johnson Date: August 6, 2025 Parcel #: 31.52.00.120 Variance

    Application #: 25-05V 

    A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical  difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following  criteria: 

    1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential.

    1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official  control?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

    1.  Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size, Highway 11 and Rainy River. 

    1. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

    1. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

    1. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Lot size. 

    Condition(s):  

    1.  Setbacks as per sketch provided in application. 
    2. Dimensions of buildings as per sketch provided in application. 
    3. Removal of buildings as proposed in application 
    4. To be completed by 12-31-2027. 

    IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE  HAVE BEEN MET. 

    Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of  Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

    APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( )  August 6, 2025 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Board of Adjustment 

    Motion to approve with conditions by Mio, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. 

    – Consideration of Variance Application #25-06V by Eugene and Laurie Mollberg : The East  Half of the Northeast Quarter (E½NE¼) less a tract in the Northwest corner, Section Fifteen  (15), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wabanica) – Parcel ID# 23.15.11.000. Applicant is requesting a variance from Section 801.5 of the Lake of  the Woods County Zoning Ordinance and Sections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Lake of the Woods  Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Ordinance, to allow the applicant to install a holding tank  for a seasonal hunting cabin with a pressurized water system. 

    Eugene was in attendance to discuss the request and answer questions from the board. The board discussed the  information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.

    Name of Applicant: Eugene Mollberg Date: August 6, 2025 

    Parcel #: 23.15.11.000 Variance Application #: 25-06V 

    A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical  difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following  criteria: 

    1.  Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Rural residential. 

    1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official  control?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Minimal usage. 

    1. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Minimal usage. 

    1. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Minimal usage. 

    1. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same 

    1. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Infrequent use. 

    Condition(s):  

    1. Valid pumper contract required. 

    IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE  BEEN MET. 

    Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of  Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

    APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( )  August 6, 2025 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Board of Adjustment 

    Motion to approve with conditions by Marhula, seconded by Mio. All in favor. 

    – Consideration of Variance Application #25-07V by John and Patricia Tombers: A tract of  land lying in Government Lot One (1) and in the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter  (SE¼NW¼), Section Twenty-eight (28), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range  Thirty-one (31) West (Baudette) – Parcel #24.28.21.030. Applicant is requesting a variance from  Section 503.5 to allow placement of a septic pump tank that will not meet the required 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) of the Rainy River. The Rainy River is an  Agricultural River segment. 

    Leroy Stigen was in attendance representing the Tombers to discuss the request and answer questions from the  board. The board discussed the information in the application. The board then moved on to the findings of fact.  

    Name of Applicant: Gregg Hennum (John and Patricia Tombers) Date: August 6, 2025 Parcel #: 24.28.21.030 Variance Application #: 25-07V 

    A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county zoning controls will result in a practical  difficulty. A determination that a “practical difficulty” exists is based upon consideration of the following  criteria: 

    1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Lake of the Woods County  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential water quality. 

    1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official  control?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Residential. 

    1. Is the practical difficulty due to circumstances unique to this property?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Setbacks and building location. 

    1. Is the need for the variance created by actions other than the landowner?  

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Setbacks and building location. 

    1. Will granting the variance not alter the essential character of the locality? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Remain the same. 

    1. Does the practical difficulty involve more than economic considerations? 

    YES (X) NO ( ) and Why or why not? Water quality and building locations. 

    Condition(s): None. 

    IF ALL OF THE ANSWERS ARE “YES”, THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAVE  BEEN MET. 

    Facts supporting the answer to each question above are hereby certified to be the Findings of the Board of  Adjustment. This is in accordance with Section 1103 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. 

    APPROVED ( ) APPROVED w/ CONDITIONS (X) DENIED ( )  August 6, 2025 ___________________________________ Date Ken Horntvedt, Chair, Board of Adjustment 

    This is in accordance with the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance

    Motion to approve with conditions by Mio, seconded by Marhula. All in favor. 

    Mio made a motion to close the Board of Adjustment meeting, seconded by Nordlof. All in favor.  Mio made a motion to open the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Marhula. All in favor.  Planning Commission – New Business 

    – Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #25-05CU by Buell Consulting, Inc. on behalf of  Lake Area Construction, Inc.: The Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the  Southwest Quarter (SE¼SW¼SW¼), Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two  (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West (Wheeler) – Parcel ID#19.20.31.000. Applicant is  requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods  County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a commercial communications tower in a Rural Residential  District (R2). 

    Stromlund noted a recent conversation with Buell Consulting and that there is a site issue yet to be resolved.  Therefore, the request has been tabled until a future date. No action required. 

    With no further business before the Planning Commission, Mio made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Johnson. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:43 PM.